Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised.
Design: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached.
Results: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described.
Conclusions: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.
Competing Interests: Disclosure SFO reports research grants from Novartis and Celldex Therapeutics and consultancy fees from BMS (paid to the institution). EGEdV reports an advisory role at Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP, and Sanofi (paid to the institution), and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, Crescendo, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier, and Synthon (paid to the institution). BG reports receiving consulting fees from Vivio Health. BK reports honoraria for lectures by Ipsen, Novartis, and MSD. JB reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from AAA, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from Nanostring, non-financial support from Roche, grants and personal fees from Servier, and personal fees from Nutricia outside the submitted work. GP received institutional financial support for advisory board/consultancy from Roche, Amgen, Merck, MSD, BMS, and institutional support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Lilly. MPi reports a Scientific Board Member at Oncolytics, consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Camel-IDS, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Immutep, Seagen, NBE Therapeutics, Frame Therapeutics and research grants from AstraZeneca, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Roche-Genentech, Servier, Synthon (paid to the institution). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)